Huge disappointment. Cohen's character has too much screentime and is awful to watch. The story moves from a personal story that's suddenly dropped to a story about early cinema.It doesnt work. 2 stars.

I think this film and Warrior are, for me, the 2 most moving films of the year. I saw the Melies and Lumieres films when I was in college and to see them in 3D was a true treat. I thought the mixture of humour, heartbreak and old school fascination was perfect. I'd take this over E.T. any day. Some people walked out because they were bored ... but I could have easily watched the whole thing again. And the use of 3D was masterful, it actually became part of the storytelling. I think there are a lot of kids in the world who will love this film the first time they see it and then probably love it the rest of their lives. And Ben Kingsley deserves some serious awards nods, as does Scorsese.

Hugo first seemed an unusual film for Scorsese to make 3D and a kiddy film i suddenly had my doubts, but hes proven he can direct anything from the ganster genre, biography drama and supernatural horror, but this is the best fantasy film ive ever seen, its visually stunning, beautifully written, superbly directed, this is without doubt a definite Oscar contender. Now theres many directors have tried to make a fantasy this great like Robert Zemickis with the polar express and Steven Spielberg with Hook but where they fail Scorsese succeeds with flying colours

What are people reviewing here? I just dont see why this movie is receiving so much positive reviews. It leads me to believe that this is just showbiz pomp sucking up to Scorcese. This film was awful. You may consider my review invalid since I walked out the movie 30 mins in. I have to tell you I love all types of movies & have never walked out on a movie before now. Believe it or not I even sat through Batman & Robin. I was quite embarassed having forced my wife to watch it with me telling her this movie is going to be a "classic". It started of with dizzying 3d camera work which I must admit didnt think was necessary for this movie. Then that annoying French harmonica music started & never seemed to stop. The pacing was flat, the kids acting was just cringeworhy & the 30 mins we saw were just aimless, tedious & really annoying. From what I gather from other non pretentious people is the film didnt get any better & Id made the right judgement to leave early, hey I even got a refund & rightly so. Turkey of the year.

What a truly magical film this is, enchanting from start to finish, i was worried that taking my 11 YO was a mistake, and then, when a 6 YO sat the other side of me i was sure i was in for a fidget fest. How surprised was i, not only about the film but the kids, they watched it avidly, never moving for anything, EVEN the toilet, two great Directors together Scorcese and Melies 5 stars for me

I sat waiting for something to happen, but it never did. There was no mystery in it, you seemed to jump from scene to scene and be baffled by the inconsistencies. Maybe there was something wrong with the film, but I'm sure in one scene the rubber faced girl (who's expressions changed constantly) was in front of the boy (please act I pleaded with him, but it never happened) coming down the stairs in the book shop and then suddenly when they got to the bottom they'd swapped places. There just wasn't the expected emotions I wanted to feel. The sad old man (Kingsley) desperate to forget his past was all to eager to embrass it when they watched the movie in his lounge. Where was the rage with these intruders? And how did his wife let them in? One second she was kicking em out of the door and the next she was saying "come on in, since you remember me being in the movies". What!?* The chase/hide and seek in the train station. Yes I can see the similarity with the early black and white movies, where the incompetent authority character, missing the rackle child, just because he went behind a pillar, but it didn't work in this film. The boy wasn't cheeky and the station inspector was a drop out from 'allo ' allo.

Some great actors went to waste in this film and the actors that were used...well.

Hugo Martin Scorsese`s new film is a great mix of adventure, coming-of-age, drama and (especially) a loving tribute to Cinema. That makes it, especially in the second part, extra fun for cinephiles. But also for the uninnitiated there`s more than enough to enjoy. Thanks to the striking production design of living legend Dante Derretti the film looks impeccable. Howard Shore`s musical support doesn`t dissapoint.

Scorsese shows us here,in his first 3D film, that when a film is shot in 3D and is executed well that it is indeed of value to enrich the movie and the movie-going experience. Here it is executed almost to perfection and it really gives the film, literally, an extra dimension.

The only real downside of the film is Sacha Baron Cohen and his character. He again shows what we all really already kinda feared: that his acting skills don`t reach further than creating a French nephew of Borat. Really sad because every scene in wich he is (prominently) featured it kinda breaks down the whole. That character really deserved a lot less screen time.

But besides that, Grandmaster Scorsese gives us a fenomenal film that especially in the second part (and more so towards the end) excells. Go on and see this!

What are people reviewing here? ...since I walked out the movie 30 mins in.

What are people reviewing? a fully watched movie, for one. If you walk out of a 130 minutes of 30 minutes there`s no point in commenting or judging the film. The pacing was flat you say, but the first act hadn`t even ended when you walked out of the movie. How can you possibly judge a movie when you`ve only seen 30 minutes of it??

_____________________________

Jules: "What" ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in What? Brett: What? Jules: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?

Not only did I love this film (more than I expected to, and I went in with fairly high expectations) but my 7- and 9-year old boys did as well. They really enjoyed the story and the characters (particularly Hugo with whom they were able to identify best) but they were also sufficiently interested to want to watch Méliès’ A Trip to the Moon in full when we got home from the cinema.

I can understand why several of the above reviewers were disatisfied with Baron Cohen's character being more of a caricature, but remember that this is also a children's film and that character is aimed at them rather than your average Empire forum member.

At the end of the day, this film is clearly a love letter to cinema, and has successfully passed on the director's love of cinema to a new audience. Thank you Mr Scorcese.

_____________________________

I wish none of this had happened. So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.

What are people reviewing here? I just dont see why this movie is receiving so much positive reviews. It leads me to believe that this is just showbiz pomp sucking up to Scorcese. This film was awful. You may consider my review invalid since I walked out the movie 30 mins in. I have to tell you I love all types of movies & have never walked out on a movie before now. Believe it or not I even sat through Batman & Robin. I was quite embarassed having forced my wife to watch it with me telling her this movie is going to be a "classic". It started of with dizzying 3d camera work which I must admit didnt think was necessary for this movie. Then that annoying French harmonica music started & never seemed to stop. The pacing was flat, the kids acting was just cringeworhy & the 30 mins we saw were just aimless, tedious & really annoying. From what I gather from other non pretentious people is the film didnt get any better & Id made the right judgement to leave early, hey I even got a refund & rightly so. Turkey of the year.

You make me cry.

_____________________________

Currahee!

It's a different film. It's a very different film! It's a different shark!

Apart from the glorious 20 minutes towards the end of the film, this is such an effort. In trying SO HARD to be charming it just irritates and bores. I'm sure there's a lovely film to be made about early cinema (on that'll be The Artist then, a masterpiece) but this isn't it. I genuinely don;t understand the positive reviews because for the first 90 minutes I wasn't moved in any way other than to admire it visually. And what a stupid story to get to the interesting part about Melies. Very disappointing.

What is going on with Empire reviews? There is no way on this Earth that Hugo is 4 stars. If this wasn't Scorcese then I am 100% positive Empire would give it 2 stars at most. It is boring, plain and simple. There was absolutely no emotional content at all. Please stop this sycophantic bottom kissing nonsense in your reviews and be honest.

How could anyone not like Hugo is beyond me.... It is SUPPOSED to be languid and slow paced, it is SUPPOSED to be eccentric and camp... It's a true love story for film, and a touching one at that..... Everyone has an opinion, and they are entitled to it.. but come ON!!! Hating this film by some is really beyond me

I watch a lot of movies at the cinema and at home. I saw this film with my whole family when it first came out and we all thought it was the most boring and pointless film we had seen and it would be one we would miss on blue ray.

Like many of Scorsese's movies, Hugo is wonderfully shot. However I think the main flaw is the marketing of this film, many cinema goes or those thinking of renting or buying this movie on DVD will probably be expecting an exciting journey. Those expecting an exciting adventure along the lines of Harry Potter or even a modern day Oliver will find their hopes dashed. That's not to say Hugo is not a good film, its a satisfying if slightly overlong film which will please fans of Scorsese and those fond or interested in the of the history of cinema may find this involving. The performances are good, particularly from Ben Kingsley, however I believe Hugo will struggle to find an audience, particularly amongst younger viewers.

If Scorsese had decided to make a two hour documentary on the history of film (and Georges Melies in particular) – I could have bought into Hugo and watched it quite happily. As it stands, this 126 minute snore fest ranks on about the same level as Age of Innocence as one of his very worst movies. Gorgeously produced and directed – all the money is up there on the screen – but Christ is it dull. Not enough humour to make it funny, not enough drama to make it interesting or exciting, not enough plot to drive the story and make the characters truly come alive. The faux pas studio version of Paris doesn’t help either – and all the talented actors seem stymied by the stilted and deathly dull dialogue that they’ve obviously been forced to sprout. They should have shot the screen writer or at least ordered a few more rewrites!!! Surely Jean Pierre Junet of Amelie fame would have made a better fist of this – or the Coen brothers perhaps? The subject matter would seem to demand such quirkiness or perhaps a lightness of touch and comedy that Scorsese obviously and clearly doesn’t have. Pains me to say it but 3D or not, avoid this one like the plague. ONE STAR…..

Because it has been roughly A Month now since I have last done a review on Empire. I have signed back in to help give The Average User Rating for this little gem of a film to a higher rating!

For a start; I was expecting a movie about The Author Of "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" Himself ("Victor Hugo"), hence why this movie is called "Hugo", and why this movie is set in Paris. However, I was wrong!

This movie offered an alternative piece of fiction which did not leave disappointed.

Overall, I very strongly agree with Empire on this review, because; Hugo is simply a classic! The Empire Review For This Film is simply one of the very best reviews that Empire has done in a very long time!

By turns humorous, heartfelt, and fascinating, Hugo is Scorsese's love letter to cinema; a veritable feast for the senses that has an intoxicating style and wonderful characters. Focusing on a curious little boy who lives in the walls of a train station, the intricate (but not contrived) storyline features, amongst other things, a robot, a young girl and her father, and classic cinema. All of these elements come into play in their own right, selling a story that is not realistic, but will bewitch a lot of viewers. Shot in a Scorsese-lite fashion and produced in a lush and enchanting manner, Scorsese has managed to craft a piece that is not only subversive and timeless, but also shows that he is still at the top of his game. A grown-up movie for kids, a kids movie for adults.

After "The Departed"; "Taxi Driver"; "GoodFellas"; "Raging Bull"; "Gangs of New York"; "Shutter Island" ... I never thought that Martin Scorsese would make a movie like this, and what kind movie is? Well, read to the end and find out. "Hugo" tells the story of.... Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan boy who lives in a train station in Paris, his job is to make the station's clock always running. But while unraveling the mystery of the little "robot" that his father left him before he died. Until he met the mysterious toy seller (Ben Kingsley) that inadvertently shows have known anything about it. So Hugo embarks on a quest to find out this secret, which seems to be difficult with the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) in pursuit of any "offenses against the law." Throughout the movie this mystery increases with each passing minute, but nobody realizes that the screenplayer (John Logan) always gives little hints of secret throughout the film. And when it comes, is a true wonder to who's watching because nobody was expecting that, although the tips are always there. With the secret many will say that the movie is really meaningless, and that is very childish. But no one sees how much this is awesome, a director who has always done adult films, and now makes his grand debut in 3D making a movie for the whole family. Managing to keep the entertainment of his films, and a impeccable 3D direction. And the secret might not impress much, but who is a lover of cinema (like me) will love it, because while it is for movie fans, it is also a tribute to the King of cinema Georges Méliès. Even the cast impressed me, Ben Kingsley perfect as always and Asa Butterfield also excellent. But I was impressed with Chloë Grace and Sacha Baron Cohen, Chloe who was the Hit-Girl in "Kick Ass," and Sacha who was Borat in "Borat", Bruno in "Bruno" and D